“Engaging with Paradigmatic Stances in Social Science Research”: A Book Review of Bunmi Omodan’s Research Paradigms and Their Methodological Alignment in Social Sciences

Authors

Norma R. Romm Prof., University of South AfricaFollow

Abstract

IIn the book, Research Paradigms and Their Methodological Alignment in Social Sciences, Bunmi Omodan explores in depth the philosophical foundations of five paradigms (which he points out are not fixed or univocal in their content), namely positivism; interpretivism/constructivism; transformative paradigm; postcolonial Indigenous paradigm; and pragmatism. Examples of the kinds of research questions, research designs, and attendant data collection and analytic processes, as well as ethical positions, that align with paradigmatic positions are presented to us. At the same time, we are urged to “engage with critiques and debates surrounding each paradigm” (Omodan, 2024, p. xii). The book thus hopes to shed light on, while contributing to, “ongoing intellectual dialogues within the field [of social research]” (Omodan, 2024, p. xii). The book re-opens discussion on topics such as: the meaning of “objectivity”; the role of the “subjectivity” of researchers in engagement with research participants, as admitted within certain paradigms; the need to critically reflect on the consequences for research participants and the wider society(ies) of the research endeavor (which he urges us all to take seriously); the possible commitment to social justice as part of a research agenda (as advocated specifically within the transformative paradigm); and the importance of appreciating the historical context in which all paradigms have arisen (and evolved), including the postcolonial Indigenous one. As he puts it, this latter paradigm “acknowledges that colonialism is not a thing of the past but continues to shape Indigenous realities [of those historically and currently affected] in various forms” (p. 119). Omodan endeavors to navigate the difficult course between trying to give credence to all the paradigms which he discusses, while urging us to continue to reflect upon the consequences of how we invoke them. He also subtly introduces as a general ethical guideline that we should (as expressly advised within transformative and Indigenous paradigms), reflect upon how research can be designed to “provide a space for inclusive decision making and co-learning, cultivating an environment where [professional] researchers’ and community members’ insights and wisdom are valued” (Omodan, 2024, p. 128).

Keywords

critical self-reflection, impact of research in society, interpreting research products, ongoing paradigmatic discussion, relevance of research, transformative potential of research

Author Bio(s)

Prof. Norma R. A. Romm (DLitt et Phil) is a (retired) Professor Extraordinarius in the Department of Adult, Continuing and Community Education at the University of South Africa. She is the author of: The Methodologies of Positivism and Marxism (Macmillan, 1991); Accountability in Social Research (Springer, 2001); New Racism (Springer, 2010); Responsible Research Practice (Springer, 2018); People’s Education in Theoretical Perspective (with V. McKay, Maskew-Miller Longman, 1992); Diversity Management (with R. Flood, Wiley, 1996); and Assessment of the Impact of HIV and AIDS in the Informal Economy of Zambia (with V. McKay, International Labor Organization, 2006). She has published over 120 research articles on social theorizing, transformative research towards social and ecological regeneration, Indigenous paradigms of knowing, and the facilitation of adult learning. She can be contacted at: norma.romm@gmail.com

Publication Date

12-1-2024

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

DOI

10.46743/2160-3715/2024.7758

Recommended APA Citation

Romm, N. R. A. (2024). “Engaging with paradigmatic stances in social science research”: A book review of Bunmi Omodan’s research paradigms and their methodological alignment in social sciences. The Qualitative Report, 29(10), 2761-2771. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.7758